Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4466 of 2022
(JAGDISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-01-2023
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No.7283/2022, an application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant - Jagdish
S/o Kushilal Louhar.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 17/05/2010,
passed in ST No.179/2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh,
District Rajgarh(M.P.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Section 396 of IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.2,000/-; under Section 120-B read with Section 115 of IPC,
sentenced to 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 201
of IPC sentenced to 7 years RI with fine of Rs.5,00/- with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that he prays for
suspension of sentence on the ground of parity with co-accused namely
Abbas Kha, who has already been extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence vide order dated 20/10/2010 in Criminal Appeal
No.760/2010. It is submitted that the case of present appellant is
exactly identical to that of co-accused Abbas Kha. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the custody of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 1/17/2023
10:57:39 AM
aforesaid co-accused were same to the present appellant during trial and
he is in custody since from date of judgment i.e.17/05/2010 and
remained under custody for a considerable period. Counsel for the
appellant urged that the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence
and even if the prosecution allegations are considered, he urged that the
office in-charge Azadsingh(PW22) of Police Station - Talen has only
identified the accused Suresh and Kalabai. He has not mentioned the
name of the present appellant. Moreover, even if the expert opinion
regarding the finger prints which is a major circumstance implicating
the accused is considered, the finger prints have not been taken in
accordance with the provisions of law. Counsel urged that the entire
prosecution case is manipulated and, therefore, he prays for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for State has opposed the submissions
of the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the presence of
the accused has been established on the basis of the finger prints in
pursuance to memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, he
did not dispute that the appellant is not having parity with the case of
co-accused Abbas Kha.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the entire evidence on record and considering the fact that
co-accused Abbas Kha has been extended bail by this Court vide order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 1/17/2023
10:57:39 AM
dated 20/10/2010 in Cri.A. No.760/2010, without expressing any
opinion as to merits of the case, on the ground of parity, the sentence of
appellant - Jagdish is suspended, subject to furnishing the bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance before this Court/Registry on 08/03/2023 and on all such
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.
I.A. No.7283/2022 stands disposed of in above terms.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 1/17/2023
10:57:39 AM
